Naresh Kumar Aneja V. State Of Uttar Pradesh & Anr

SLP (Crl.) No. 1093/2021

Supreme Court of India in its recent decision clarified and highlighted the essential ingredients for invoking Section 354 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) now as Section 74 of Bhartiya Nyay Sanhita (BNS). This landmark judgment provided a comprehensive analysis of the concepts of “criminal force” and “intent to outrage the modesty of a woman.”

The Supreme Court of India, in this case, addressed the appeal arising from the judgment of the High Court of Allahabad. The Petitioner, Naresh Aneja, sought the quashing of criminal proceedings-initiated u/s 354 (Assault to outrage modesty of a woman) and 506 (Criminal Intimidation) of the Indian Penal Code (IPC). The primary contention revolved around whether the charges were ex-facie made out, warranting a trial.

Facts:

1. The Petitioner, Naresh Aneja, sought relief against the invocation of Section 354 IPC in the criminal proceedings initiated against him.
2. The complaint alleged an act of physical conduct that purportedly outraged the modesty of the complainant.
3. The Petitioner and his brother thereafter filed a complaint against the complainant alleging criminal breach of trust, cheating, and siphoning of funds of the partnership concern.
4. An FIR bearing FIR No. 1074/2019 was registered based on the complainant’s statement after an application u/s 156(3) of CrPC.
5. Chargesheet in CR. No. 8264/2020 was filed and cognizance was taken.
6. The petitioner contested that the ingredients necessary to constitute an offense under Section 354 IPC were not met.
7. However, the High Court refused to quash the proceedings, stating the presence of disputed questions of fact.

Legal Issues:

1. The primary issue was whether the charges under Sections 354 and 506 IPC were prima facie made out against the Petitioner, justifying the continuation of proceedings.
2. Whether the act alleged constitutes “criminal force” as defined under Section 349 IPC.
3. Whether the act was done with the intent or knowledge to outrage the modesty of the complainant, thereby satisfying the requirements of Section 354 IPC.

Key Arguments:

Petitioner’s Contentions

1. Allegations were motivated and arose out of business disputes.
2. There was no evidence of direct involvement or intent to commit the offenses.
3. Preliminary investigation reports suggested no prima facie case against him.

Respondent’s Contentions

1. The Petitioner used his position to blackmail and harass the complainant.
2. The FIR, along with statements under Sections 161 and 164 CrPC, supported the allegations.

Court’s Analysis And Observations:

Legal Threshold for Section 354 IPC:

The Court examined the elements of intent, force, and modesty and held that for an act to constitute an offense under Section 354 IPC, the prosecution must establish that the accused acted with the specific intent or knowledge that the act would outrage the modesty of a woman and subsequently concluded that no substantive evidence supported the allegations against the Petitioner. Highlighting the requirement of Subjective and Objective Test, the Court reiterated that the term “modesty” is not confined to physical attributes but encompasses a woman’s dignity. The evaluation of whether an act outrages modesty requires both subjective and objective considerations.  The Court held that not every physical act amounts to a violation under this section unless it is coupled with criminal intent or knowledge.  

Criminal Intimidation for Section 506 IPC:

The Court emphasized that an act of physical force is deemed “criminal” if it is intentional and unlawful. Mere physical contact without criminal intent does not suffice and further highlighted the need for clear and cogent evidence of intent to cause alarm thereby declaring to have found no material or evidence to substantiate the claims against the Petitioner. The Court emphasized that

Scope of Section 482 CrPC:

Citing precedents like Bhajan Lal and Indian Oil Corporation v. NEPC India, the Court reiterated that criminal proceedings should not be used to harass individuals without prima facie evidence.

Judgment:

1. The Supreme Court quashed the proceedings under Section 354 IPC against the petitioner, holding that the necessary ingredients for the offense were not met and that the allegations lacked substance and evidence.
2. It clarified that mere allegations or unintended physical contact, in the absence of intent or knowledge, cannot be criminalized under this provision.
3. Observations were restricted to the Petitioner and that the proceedings against the co-accused, R.K. Aneja, were left undisturbed.

Significance Of The Judgment:

1. Prevention of Misuse: The judgment safeguards individuals from frivolous accusations under Section 354 IPC by mandating a higher threshold of proof regarding intent and knowledge.
2. Judicial Prudence: It provides clear guidance on the application of Section 354 IPC, balancing the rights of the accused and the complainant and reinforces the need for cogent evidence before subjecting individuals to criminal trials.
3. Safeguarding the dignity of Women: While protecting individuals from wrongful prosecution, the judgment underscores the need to address genuine grievances that infringe upon a woman’s modesty.

CONCLUSION:

This decision serves as a crucial precedent in interpreting offences against women under Section 354 IPC delineating the balance between protecting victims’ rights and preventing misuse of the criminal justice system thereby promoting a fair application of the law. The judgment reflects the judiciary’s commitment to ensuring justice while preventing harassment through malicious prosecutions.